Woman fined $140 a day for refusing to circumcise son

[NZA]

they gonna start dropping everyone's drawers upon entry now?

nobody will check, and moderate jews and moderate synagogues most likely dont care, but some of those israeli jews are hardcore so if they knew, they might have a problem

 

[TLOL is back]

Aren't you always saying that Israel is secular? Why have a religious court? How does a religious court have power in a secular country?

Yes, religious courts exist in every country. Israel doesn't get involved in marriage because marriage is a religious concept. So it leaves it up to the courts. If this was a Muslim couple, they would deal with their own courts. Marriage is left to the religious authorities.

If an Israeli couple for some reason wants a secular marriage (I never saw the point in marriage, honestly), they are free to go to a country that performs secular marriages and Israel will recognize it (even for homosexual couples).

It simply does not get involved in marriages, and allows people to approach the religious authorities to deal with it.

 

[TLOL is back]

If you are having it done for your son in a proper medical (Sterile) facility by trained doctors and done because you feel it is beneficial to the health of your son, that is MUCH different than having a religious ceremony where a rabbi snips the foreskin of a child because a nonexistent person supposedly made a pact with God generations upon generations ago. That's crazy talk. If you're having your child mutilated for religious reasons, you deserve to be put away for child abuse or at least committed to a mental institution for severe delusion.

So whether or not something is a crime depends on intent, not action? That's weird.

Either way, most circumcision horror stories I've heard were circumcisions conducted by doctors. The only times horror came from a Rabbi was with metzitzah ba peh, a disgusting practice abandoned by most Jews.

I would ask for some kind of evidence that it is safer if performed by a doctor. You act like Rabbis just walk in with a pair of scissors and hope for the best.

 

[Type Username Here]

Yes, religious courts exist in every country. Israel doesn't get involved in marriage because marriage is a religious concept. So it leaves it up to the courts. If this was a Muslim couple, they would deal with their own courts. Marriage is left to the religious authorities.

If an Israeli couple for some reason wants a secular marriage (I never saw the point in marriage, honestly), they are free to go to a country that performs secular marriages and Israel will recognize it (even for homosexual couples).

It simply does not get involved in marriages, and allows people to approach the religious authorities to deal with it.

Thank you for your answer. I assumed that were was a religious component to marriage, but what really mattered was the civil union bound by law and recognition from the state. In most secular countries that is the case, and religious courts are not sanctioned by the state, thus all spousal and marriage issues are resolved in a court room.

 

[Type Username Here]

So whether or not something is a crime depends on intent, not action? That's weird.

Uhh yea. That's a large component of social order. While the action of putting a bullet in someone might be the same in a murder or a case of self-defense, a person's intent matters. Intent also factors in in different degrees of murder or manslaughter chargers. Intent absolutely matters.

Either way, most circumcision horror stories I've heard were circumcisions conducted by doctors. The only times horror came from a Rabbi was with metzitzah ba peh, a disgusting practice abandoned by most Jews

.

There is a significant minority of Reformist Jews, secular Hebrews, and other smaller groups that find the tradition in its entity to be disgusting and outdated.

I would ask for some kind of evidence that it is safer if performed by a doctor. You act like Rabbis just walk in with a pair of scissors and hope for the best.

The only problem with your logic here is that cases involving religion are the only place where this matters. No where else would a surgical procedure be tolerated outside of a proper sterile environment and done without accredited physicians. Only in the cases of dire emergency is this overruled.

 

[TLOL is back]

Uhh yea. That's a large component of social order. While the action of putting a bullet in someone might be the same in a murder or a case of self-defense, a person's intent matters. Intent also factors in in different degrees of murder or manslaughter chargers. Intent absolutely matters.

When does intent matter of whether or not something is a punishable crime (other than doing something unintentionally)?

When are there cases where John did it because of X, therefore it is a crime, Joe did it because of Y, therefore it isn't?

There is a significant minority of Reformist Jews, secular Hebrews, and other smaller groups that find the tradition in its entity to be disgusting and outdated.

And?

The only problem with your logic here is that cases involving religion are the only place where this matters. No where else would a surgical procedure be tolerated outside of a proper sterile environment and done without accredited physicians. Only in the cases of dire emergency is this overruled.

You're calling it a surgical procedure.... Is piercing a surgical procedure? If so, doctors are not the only ones performing them, and religion is irrelevant.

Thank you for your answer. I assumed that were was a religious component to marriage, but what really mattered was the civil union bound by law and recognition from the state. In most secular countries that is the case, and religious courts are not sanctioned by the state, thus all spousal and marriage issues are resolved in a court room.

I understand. Honestly, I like the fact that if I would like to meet a girl there, we can devise our own contract (agreement) and decide what to do with our lives in the case of a split up without the government interfering.

Getting married in another country is nice, but the divorce process in another country would be such a hassle, most couples would probably be reasonable enough to come to an agreement quickly and end it.

Here in the US I would have to pay her Alimony or even Palimony (in the absence of a state-marriage). Pre-nups are thrown out in court all the time. The idea that two people cannot form their own contract is absurd to me.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@TLOL is back

We somewhat agree on this, but your argument on intent makes no sense

Intent doesnt matter in whether or not it is a punishable crime, unless there is no intent at all?

Doesnt that make it an important factor?

Obviously, in law, intent is hard to prove..but it can definitely make a difference in which charges are filed, if any, and also in sentencing.

 

[TLOL is back]

@TLOL is back

We somewhat agree on this, but your argument on intent makes no sense

Intent doesnt matter in whether or not it is a punishable crime, unless there is no intent at all?

Doesnt that make it an important factor?

Obviously, in law, intent is hard to prove..but it can definitely make a difference in which charges are filed, if any, and also in sentencing.

I'm not hell-bent on that argument to be honest. All I'm asking is when in the legal system is an action a crime for reason X and not a crime for reason Y?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I'm not hell-bent on that argument to be honest. All I'm asking is when in the legal system is an action a crime for reason X and not a crime for reason Y?

Harming or killing based on self defense or not.

Insanity defenses vs premeditation and calculated acts.

Bounties vs vigilante justice

closely timed similar innovation vs copyright/patent infringement (mostly civil)

a family member taking a related child for a trip for recreational purposes or to protect from a violent situation vs taking a child to wantonly avoid enforcement of custody decisions

etc

 

[TLOL is back]

Harming or killing based on self defense or not.

That's not really intent though, that involves other contextual variabes.

If you are defending yourself, but you wanted to kill the guy for a long time and are glad you had the opportunity, is saving your own life suddenly a crime?

Insanity defenses vs premeditation and calculated acts.

Insanity defense requires the lack of intent to break the law (the person did not know it was wrong)

Bounties vs vigilante justice

So if someone intends to do something for the purpose of vigilante justice, and there just happens to be a bounty for that same act --- it just became illegal? The person would be punished?

closely timed similar innovation vs copyright/patent infringement (mostly civil)

This is vague and I'm not seeing the difference.

a family member taking a related child for a trip for recreational purposes or to protect from a violent situation vs taking a child to wantonly avoid enforcement of custody decisions

etc

Okay, I suppose you can add that to the list:

Intent doesn't appear to affect whether or not something is a crime unless

• The action was unintended, a mistake, accident, etc.
• The person is saving a life or protecting a life.

I may be wrong, but you haven't demonstrated it in your post.

 

[Everythingg]

A lot is wrong with that. It's physically harming and maiming an infant for the purpose of fulfilling a loyalty pact that never truly existed.

While I am against a medical circumcision as well, it at least involves proper environment and staff to do such a procedure. Having some sick pedophile ceremony conducted by a religious leader is primitive as fukk and should have no place in modern society.

Yea I dont know about someone sucking blood out of a dikk I dont think that is in the majority of what happens do you?

Im specifically speaking of the "loyalty pact" and why its wrong for people to adhere to it. If the "loyalty pact" didnt happen, why did happen to most of the world do it just as was said?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

On SD- Your intent is to defend yourself, not kill the other person. If you wanted to kill the guy for a long time then that could be considered pre-meditated to a degree, and obviously that would go to a trial, where the prosecution would argue malicious intent, while the defense would say it would simple self-defense (would depend on evidence).

Insanity defenses don't necessarily mean lack of intent, but moreso that they weren't in the right mind to make a decision that they could have controlled at that given time. People can have a fit of rage, fully intending to harm, and do harm, and still get off on an insanity defense.

No, Im saying if there is a bounty for a criminal and they are captured and/or harmed in the capturing by a civilian..or if someone beat up a girl then a bunch of guys beat up that guy to "take matters into their own hands" (just as an example), its a crime.

If two people invented something at the same time, and one person got a patent for it and began the process to make money off of it, while the other person waited a while to try to produce it and go through the patent process, if the second guy can prove he was not impacted or influenced at all by the first guy, then that guy may face a different result than if someone intentionally copied or stole an idea.

 

[Bondye Vodou]

Don't forget about this bruhs


He prolly can't wait to suck that fresh blood from his son's dikk.


metzitzah b'peh brehs, dem abrahamic religions ain't backwards

 

[Kritic]

this suckin dikks is really real?! i thought yall just sayin...

 

[Type Username Here]

this suckin dikks is really real?! i thought yall just sayin...

Yes, it also used to be widely practiced until Jews with common sense realized it had no place in modern society. Hopefully ritualistic non-medical circumcision can meet the same fate.